My less-complex feeling is that Biden exited office committing a piece of overt disinformation -- the 28th Amendment is not law -- and in so doing undermined the public's remaining sense that it can expect truth from any of its leaders.
Thank you for putting your finger on why this was so depressing. It was the bandwagon jumping by groups like the ABA I found much more disorienting than Biden's (dumb and bad faith) gesture. It's watching what's happened to the GOP that's made assent to falsehood the litmus test for membership and deciding to pick out a few falsehoods to filter by yourself.
Joel is correct, I think: Biden's declaration was a giant, pointless, yes-virtue-signaling-but-actually-kind-of-contemptuous-of-the-whole-thing-nonetheless disinformation finger on his way out the door. Something profoundly unworthy of him, but I can imagine that Biden, at this moment, is so filled with disbelief and outrage at what our dysfunctional liberal democracy has produced that he honestly doesn't give a damn any longer.
So what's your explanation for why advocacy groups and folks like Senator Gillibrand wanted him to do this? What does *that* say? At a minimum, it says that it's not just Biden who's virtue-signaling-but-actually-kind-of-contemptuous-of-the-whole-thing.
Recently "re-stumbled" across your substack, Noah, and it's great. In an nutshell, I can say, more concisely than in my post below, that--YES--there is a certain "contemptuous-of-the-whole-thing" attitude on the Left. Not necessarily your standard issue "liberal," but the so-called progressive Left. It's a little disappointing Gillibrand bought into this, as she's hardly a "leftist."
They current Left, I'm afraid, is contemptuous of our institutions if they're not advancing their idea of "justice." On the broader left--that is, everything & everyone running from Joe Manchin to the Berkley sociology department--there was a minority view that Trump's election "proved" the U.S. was just one big corporatist farce--"it was *never* great." Not exactly a mainstream view, but one w/ traction in progressive circles." I dare say this is a form nihilism if it means that, therefore, none of us are bound by tradition & institution . . . because the American experiment is just about pure power & wealth. If so, then we've got to get ours and that means "justice" . . . by any means necessary. Thankfully, still a minority view all this.
Yes -- this has been kicking around for several years now, this idea that the E.R.A. can be "resurrected" by getting the courts to overturn the time limit and deny states the ability to rescind their prior ratification votes. I'm mystified by how the advocates think this will be seen as legitimate (and also by why they think the courts will give them what they want).
Perhaps it's all about fundraising. And for legislators, perhaps it's just about winning applause for supporting an apparently anodyne popular cause. I don't think there's very much thinking going on with any of this stuff by 90% of the people involved.
Arguing that SCOTUS could ignore the time limit is one (dubious) argument. Arguing that its a one way ratchet and states can affirm the amendment but not withdraw their approval is bad faith.
I confess that I don't have a good answer to that. I can understand various activist groups pushing for him to declare his belief that the ERA is the law of the land--some of them have been consistently pushing the administration and Democratic members of Congress for such a declaration for years, and probably most of them genuinely believe they're in the right--but why sitting politicians would want him to is a different calculation. I presume that the Congressional caucus in support of the ERA isn't going away, so Senator Gillibrand and others are going to have structures of support motivating them to push for this, even if the timing and circumstances are plainly theatrical performances at best. But maybe some of them actually believe in the popular constitutionalism you sketch out, which I think would be pretty great but which I'm sure they wouldn't actually want to be consistent about, for the reasons you outline.
I have the same impression. It was an act of bitterness, a middle finger to all those who’ve been heaping dirt on him for having been too passive, too weak, too this, too that. ‘You want bold, I’ll give you bold.’ Don’t know how many will give it much attention, especially with Trump now taking the stage.
I've often thought during Biden's term that Democrats could only see authoritarianism when they were looking at Trump, as if by definition Democrats were incapable of authoritarianism.
"If Biden and his supporters believe that he can resolve this question by fiat, then they must grant that his successor can do the same."
No--they don't. That's part of the problem. We have a self-righteous, virtuous Left that doesn't subscribe to such reason. Because equal rights based on sex is a *good* thing, they'd argue (and I agree it's a moral good), then just about whatever is necessary to make it the law of the land is acceptable. But because the MAGA agenda is "bad," then, no, Trump does not have equivalent powers.
Or, at a minimum, if he were to use similar executive fiat, it would lack "legitimacy." While Biden's is morally legitimate.
Generally speaking--especially since the issue of women in combat is apparently resolved (no matter what Pete Hegseth said in 2013)--I'm all for the ERA. I'm also for the rule of law and our Constitution. What I *want* has to be accomplished legally. But we have a "new (old) Left" that doesn't see things that way. And why should they? We've had a "new Right" that doesn't give a damn about the constitutional process, either. Trump's people absolutely believe they could revoke so-called "birthright citizenship" w/ an executive order. You'll hear liberals, both of the "small L" & "big L" type, argue that this is ludicrous. You'll hear equally defiant opposition from the Left. The difference, however, is that *liberals* believe it's both unconstitutional & immoral for Presidents to defy the Constitution by fiat.
The Left, however does not share that belief. Not if the cause advances "justice." Just ask my grad students.
My less-complex feeling is that Biden exited office committing a piece of overt disinformation -- the 28th Amendment is not law -- and in so doing undermined the public's remaining sense that it can expect truth from any of its leaders.
Yeah, that's basically what I mean by "it's all theater."
Thank you for putting your finger on why this was so depressing. It was the bandwagon jumping by groups like the ABA I found much more disorienting than Biden's (dumb and bad faith) gesture. It's watching what's happened to the GOP that's made assent to falsehood the litmus test for membership and deciding to pick out a few falsehoods to filter by yourself.
Joel is correct, I think: Biden's declaration was a giant, pointless, yes-virtue-signaling-but-actually-kind-of-contemptuous-of-the-whole-thing-nonetheless disinformation finger on his way out the door. Something profoundly unworthy of him, but I can imagine that Biden, at this moment, is so filled with disbelief and outrage at what our dysfunctional liberal democracy has produced that he honestly doesn't give a damn any longer.
So what's your explanation for why advocacy groups and folks like Senator Gillibrand wanted him to do this? What does *that* say? At a minimum, it says that it's not just Biden who's virtue-signaling-but-actually-kind-of-contemptuous-of-the-whole-thing.
Recently "re-stumbled" across your substack, Noah, and it's great. In an nutshell, I can say, more concisely than in my post below, that--YES--there is a certain "contemptuous-of-the-whole-thing" attitude on the Left. Not necessarily your standard issue "liberal," but the so-called progressive Left. It's a little disappointing Gillibrand bought into this, as she's hardly a "leftist."
They current Left, I'm afraid, is contemptuous of our institutions if they're not advancing their idea of "justice." On the broader left--that is, everything & everyone running from Joe Manchin to the Berkley sociology department--there was a minority view that Trump's election "proved" the U.S. was just one big corporatist farce--"it was *never* great." Not exactly a mainstream view, but one w/ traction in progressive circles." I dare say this is a form nihilism if it means that, therefore, none of us are bound by tradition & institution . . . because the American experiment is just about pure power & wealth. If so, then we've got to get ours and that means "justice" . . . by any means necessary. Thankfully, still a minority view all this.
And the Illinois, Nevada. and Virginia legislatures must have thought their belated action had some point in the first place.
Yes -- this has been kicking around for several years now, this idea that the E.R.A. can be "resurrected" by getting the courts to overturn the time limit and deny states the ability to rescind their prior ratification votes. I'm mystified by how the advocates think this will be seen as legitimate (and also by why they think the courts will give them what they want).
Perhaps it's all about fundraising. And for legislators, perhaps it's just about winning applause for supporting an apparently anodyne popular cause. I don't think there's very much thinking going on with any of this stuff by 90% of the people involved.
Arguing that SCOTUS could ignore the time limit is one (dubious) argument. Arguing that its a one way ratchet and states can affirm the amendment but not withdraw their approval is bad faith.
Yep. Only saying it may be crazy but it was not unilateral.
I confess that I don't have a good answer to that. I can understand various activist groups pushing for him to declare his belief that the ERA is the law of the land--some of them have been consistently pushing the administration and Democratic members of Congress for such a declaration for years, and probably most of them genuinely believe they're in the right--but why sitting politicians would want him to is a different calculation. I presume that the Congressional caucus in support of the ERA isn't going away, so Senator Gillibrand and others are going to have structures of support motivating them to push for this, even if the timing and circumstances are plainly theatrical performances at best. But maybe some of them actually believe in the popular constitutionalism you sketch out, which I think would be pretty great but which I'm sure they wouldn't actually want to be consistent about, for the reasons you outline.
I have the same impression. It was an act of bitterness, a middle finger to all those who’ve been heaping dirt on him for having been too passive, too weak, too this, too that. ‘You want bold, I’ll give you bold.’ Don’t know how many will give it much attention, especially with Trump now taking the stage.
I've often thought during Biden's term that Democrats could only see authoritarianism when they were looking at Trump, as if by definition Democrats were incapable of authoritarianism.
"If Biden and his supporters believe that he can resolve this question by fiat, then they must grant that his successor can do the same."
No--they don't. That's part of the problem. We have a self-righteous, virtuous Left that doesn't subscribe to such reason. Because equal rights based on sex is a *good* thing, they'd argue (and I agree it's a moral good), then just about whatever is necessary to make it the law of the land is acceptable. But because the MAGA agenda is "bad," then, no, Trump does not have equivalent powers.
Or, at a minimum, if he were to use similar executive fiat, it would lack "legitimacy." While Biden's is morally legitimate.
Generally speaking--especially since the issue of women in combat is apparently resolved (no matter what Pete Hegseth said in 2013)--I'm all for the ERA. I'm also for the rule of law and our Constitution. What I *want* has to be accomplished legally. But we have a "new (old) Left" that doesn't see things that way. And why should they? We've had a "new Right" that doesn't give a damn about the constitutional process, either. Trump's people absolutely believe they could revoke so-called "birthright citizenship" w/ an executive order. You'll hear liberals, both of the "small L" & "big L" type, argue that this is ludicrous. You'll hear equally defiant opposition from the Left. The difference, however, is that *liberals* believe it's both unconstitutional & immoral for Presidents to defy the Constitution by fiat.
The Left, however does not share that belief. Not if the cause advances "justice." Just ask my grad students.